Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on December 16, 2003, 07:16:00 PM
-
I found this link about Berryman, a supposed child advocate, doesn't look very good here-
http://wwaspsrebuttal.com/jeff_b.html (http://wwaspsrebuttal.com/jeff_b.html)
Does, he refer students to PURE? If so that does not make much sense.
-
Is what they are saying accurate? Care to comment? If you do not comment, I will take that as a yes, it is correct.
-
:rofl: Mr. Berryman :wave:
BTW, was he there to be a character witness or something?
I read that he was posting lies about wwasp all over the internet and was proud of it...any truth to that?
-
I think he looks very hypocritical if he refers to other programs and this guy has no experince, and his conclusions could be on Unsolved Mysteries, their is no scientific data to back his beliefs nor he has any experince working with teens. Cary from my understanding this was a deposition done on Berryman, which is a verbatim of his own anwsers or confessions.
::bangin::
-
Not quite. Perhaps it is verbatim, but that's not what the disclaimer states:
The following is an overview of Jeff B.?s recent deposition in this lawsuit, it is not verbatim nor complete, it is just a witness?s perspective
overview of his testimony. For a complete copy of the deposition email:
ken@wwasp.com and request Jeff B. Deposition)
-
Yes, I saw that it was a sort of summary of his deposition. That is why I was asking Jeff if he would comment on it and its accuracy. I think if he doesn't then it must be pretty close to the truth.
-
Carey, very few people care what you saw unless it has to do with more money. I don't like Jeff D's style either, but what probably happened here, is two things:
First, he should have gone to these schools and gone inside if he was lucky enough to have the chance to be invited inside. That way, he could speak credibly about these places or even one place, and,
Second, he probably got talked into a hole or was scared by the deposition process, which is no fun and made a poor witness. It does happen, and quite often. All of the defense lawyers look pretty weak to me anyway, and that too, is part of the problem.
Like I said, he's not a favorite of mine, but he's brought some awareness to the situation which is good. As for you, you are a witness that has been paid handsomely for your wares. As Deb said yesterday, stop using the divide and conquer technique to upset and confuse people on this board.
-
No answers from miss "I know everything now that I have $12,500".
-
Okay, what the hell did this guy say in his deposition? Some of us were not there and have no clue what you are talking about.
-
If you look at the link (a couple of posts down) you'll see that, at least what WWASP shows on their rebuttal board, is not very flattering to Berryman. Honestly, the legal process can be pretty overwhelming and his lawyers don't look like they're the legal equivelent of brain surgeons. It's not necessarily an excuse, but the coaching should have been better and he should have been braced for the unpleasantness of this kind of thing. He didn't hurt, but he sure didn't help himself or the cause.
-
Naturally, the info available on the WWASP site is going to be spun to their liking. That's how the game is played.
The defendants, otoh, are bound by a preliminary injunction against making any public negative comments about WWASP. That's why they can't answer.
I can guess, though, based on what I've read about Jeff over the last year or more. This is only a guess, just my opinion.
Jeff and Sue and all the Trekkers and PURE ppl are quite sincere and benevolent in their intentions. Except for those of you who have actually been enroled and/or employed in a WWASP facility, none of us can say "I know _____" happens at WWASP facilities. What we can say is that a lot of people make the same claims, many of these claims are consistent with our own experiences at other Synanon based programs and that we, personally, believe them.
Now WWASP seems to me to be holding people's feet to the fire for careless talk. Not necessarily inacurate in content. Just carelessly phrased.
Then throw in the complication of some of these folks believing, in all sincerity, that the basic method is good and helpful and that the solution to the problem is just a kinder, gentler implimentation. No need to attribute bad intent to these people. Good or bad, their intentions are beside the point.
If anyone on either side of this suit really wanted the whole truth told, I would think we'd be reading accurate transcripts and, possibly, seeing digital video. Instead, we're seeing only summaries, selected bits and pieces taken out of context and, for all we know, quite distorted.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
--
Anonymous . . . for obvious reasons
-
12,500 ? that wasn't distorted...kinda like a finders fee if you ask carey. yes, she sold emails to acquire compensation so children can still be incarserated in the "program". great job oh brainless one!
carey's depo is about the same; informed everyone at first about spending 15K, then at her depo she escalated it to 20K, now i see on fornits it has jumped to 25-30K...so which one are we to believe now ms. know-it-all? bearer of the "truth"!
-
On 2003-12-17 07:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"12,500 ? that wasn't distorted...kinda like a finders fee if you ask carey. yes, she sold emails to acquire compensation so children can still be incarserated in the "program". great job oh brainless one!
carey's depo is about the same; informed everyone at first about spending 15K, then at her depo she escalated it to 20K, now i see on fornits it has jumped to 25-30K...so which one are we to believe now ms. know-it-all? bearer of the "truth"!"
So true....So true!!!
-
Go back and do your homework. My trip to Dundee cost me about $15,000. The whole ordeal cost me over $25,000. No one distorted anything, you just don't have all of the details, you don't understand them or you have chosen to just not accept them.
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-17 08:03 ]
-
You.... what????
The usual prattle from Carey!
-
Oh, she edited again. Very good Carey. Let's see those receipts. Probably charged to a WWASP Credit Card no doubt.
-
then why lie in your depo? wasn't it 20K then?
-
On 2003-12-17 07:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"12,500 ? that wasn't distorted...kinda like a finders fee if you ask carey. yes, she sold emails to acquire compensation so children can still be incarserated in the "program". great job oh brainless one!
carey's depo is about the same; informed everyone at first about spending 15K, then at her depo she escalated it to 20K, now i see on fornits it has jumped to 25-30K...so which one are we to believe now ms. know-it-all? bearer of the "truth"!"
Oh, have you got a copy of the depo? Care to share?You have rights atecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.
John Adams
-
Is that all that concerns you? I accidently typed in "you" and forgot to delete it. That gets your goat? Address the real issues, not what is insignificant, 'you'. Unless of course you can't.
-
We've all done fine Carey. It just looked like a loose thread and we were wondering how such an accomplished person could do such a thing.
-
can't share yet, but i will when i can...can't wait.
-
Ginger, I will be getting a copy. The court reporter is sending me one. She said because I did not have a lawyer there reprenting me, she would be able to do that. When I get it, I will be more than glad to post it on your site.
-
On 2003-12-17 08:11:00, Carey wrote:
"Ginger, I will be getting a copy. The court reporter is sending me one. She said because I did not have a lawyer there reprenting me, she would be able to do that. When I get it, I will be more than glad to post it on your site. "
She'll be glad to after she submits it for the Pulitzer Prize it deserves (FICTION)
-
Hell, I'm just looking to compare what Carey actually said at deposition w/ some of the rumors about it that ppl posted right afterward.
Why can't you send a copy or it? You seem to want so badly for everyone to know just what Carey said and you apparently have a copy of the material under discussion. Wouldn't it just clear things up real quick and simple if you were to just show us all what you're trying to describe? It's not asif it's priviledged info or anything. It's on the public record already, isn't it?
Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.
--Rep. Robert L. Henry, TX December 22, 1914 (quoting Lincoln)
-
Yes, let's have it, Goddamnit! And no doctoring, now...from either side... :smokin:
-
2 different Anons Ginger. If I had it, you'd have it, believe me!!!!
-
Yeah, let it all hang out. What the heck, 'tis the season to be jolly.
:wave:
-
On 2003-12-17 08:11:00, Carey wrote:
"Ginger, I will be getting a copy. The court reporter is sending me one. She said because I did not have a lawyer there reprenting me, she would be able to do that. When I get it, I will be more than glad to post it on your site. "
didn't you mean you'd be glad to SELL it to her site?
-
ATTORNEY: Ms. Bock, were you a Trekker?
WITNESS BOCK: Yes, I was (wink, wink)
ATTORNEY: Ms. Bock, did you, in exchange for $12,500, stab everyone in the back who helped you emotionally and helped you to retrieve your two sons?
WITNESS BOCK: Well, yes!
ATTORNEY: Ms. Bock, would yuou say that makes you trailer trash?
WITNESS: No, I did the right thing, because I spent $200,000, no $150,000 - oh, I can't get caught up in numbers, but no one helped me and the Trekkers are bad, so I took the money to avoid bankruptcy and to form a new alliance with my new friends at WWASP (wink, wink).
ATTORNEY: Your honor, may I have permission to have this witness declared crazy?
there's more!
-
That will be $12,500 please!
-
JUDGE: Granted
ATTORNEY: OK Ms. Bock, how many times have you been committed to a mental hospital in your life?
MS. BOCK: A few times, but it wasn't my fault.
ATTORNEY: Ms. Bock, how did you lose track of your children and then realize all of the sudden they were sent away?
MS. BOCK: Well, I don't know, but it wasn't my fault.
ATTORNEY: Ms. Bock, if I were to give you another $12,500, would you admit to something being your fault?
MS. BOCK: Well, I might, but my price has gone up to $20,000 and you have to force the ISAC people to let me chat on their board.
-
The real fiction is the alledge abuse that Berryman can tell that is happening. His tatics are anti-scientific, anti-educated, he is going of a whim that makes no sense. That is liking stating the Earth Is Flat.
-
Carey,
What do you know of Jeff? What is your experince of him?
-
she's probably to busy for fornits now...she's either working at the bank or cashing another dirty check....kching!
-
That's cold??!!
-
Deborah,
Are you affliated with Berryman? What type of formal training do you have working with struggling teens? :eek:
-
Deborah are you avoiding the question?
-
What makes you think Deborah is an educational consultant, Anon? Nothing I have ever read suggests that is the case, in fact, quite the contrary since I believe it is Deborah who coined the term ED CON.
:question:
-
Deborah is affiliated with Berryman. They are on another listserv together.
-
That's a pretty loose affiliation though, Carey. By that standard, we're all affiliated with everyone who posts to these forums.
When I started as a federal narcotics agent, the budget that we were working with, it was less than $5 million a year, and there was only 125 agents for the entire world to work the narcotic trade that we were fighting in those days. Times have changed. The gluttony has grown.
--Nick Navarro, former Broward, FL Sherrif
-
Ginger,
Are you starting to GET IT yet. Now she is making shit up about Deborah.
Be aware you will be smeared next.
It is what she does best .
-
I have no financial interest in WWASP, PURE, any educational consulting business, educational, therapeutic, or quasi-therapeutic institution. Let's say I am just a bored lexicographer who had finished his Christmas shopping before Labor Day.
In preparation for the latest edition of my dictionary, I am researching possible new definitions of the word "affiliated"
What is your definition of the word "affiliated"? Does this definition include ALL persons on the same list serve? If so, does your definition also include all persons who post to given web site? (Thus, WWASPS employees post to Fornits. Pure Employees post to Fornits. Therefore, WWASPS is "affiliated" with PURE.) How about people whose sames are listed in the same phone book?
Traditional legal (and dictionary) definitions of "affiliated" would focus on business or familial relationships. To rephrase the question of the previous post in a more precise way:
1. Has Deborah ever accepted any monetary or non-monetary compensation from Berryman either as an employee or an independent contractor?
2. Has Berryman ever accepted any monetary or non-monetary compensation from Deborah either as an employee or an independent contractor?
3. Does Deborah hold any ownership interest of any degree in any business entity (corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trust or non-profit organization)in which Berryman holds an ownership interest of any degree or serves as an employee or director?
4. Is Deborah a creditor (in any amount) of Berryman or any business entity or non-profit organization in which Berryman holds an ownership interest of any degree or serves as an employee or director?
5. Is Deborah "affiliated" by family relationship to Berryman in any degree of cosanguinity higher than third cousin, including
family relationship by marriage?
Sorry folks, unless you can answer "Yes" to any of the above questions (from your own personal knowledge) this definition of "affiliated" is worse than worthless. This attentuated reasoning is a throwback to McCarthy era standard of "If you at any time ever KNEW a communist, then you must yourself BE a communist" (Or to put it in more contemporary terms, since everyone in the world is separated from Kevin Bacon by six degrees of separation or less, all six billion inhabitants of earth are "affiliated" with Kevin Bacon)
-
You MUST be joking! There are some wonderfully tallented and energetic smear artists who frequent these forums. I haven't seen a lot of sign that Carey's even in the top ten.
Here's what I think of Jeff. He thinks the troubled parent industry just needs a little reform. He means well, but I think he's barking up the wrong tree. Remember that Straight started out as an attempt at a kinder, gentler Seed. Based on the words and deeds of about half of the original board of directors, I think they were sincere in that. When that didn't work out, then came LIFE. As de dawg chases it's tail, now we have Bridges to Understanding and Trekkers doing the same damned thing.
And, just as in days gone by, instead of addressing people's concerns about that and looking to the industry's history for instruction, the've fashioned this Scarey Carey hobgoblin on which to blame all the criticism the same way the WWASPies have made a monster out of PURE and pretend no one else has any complaints about them.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.""--Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See
Since you [US "drug tsar" McCaffrey] control a federal budget that has just been increased from $17.8 billion last year to $19.2 billion this year, is asking people like you if we should continue with our nation's current drug policy like a person asking a barber if one needs a haircut? --
Orange Country, California
Los Angeles Times
29 March 2000
--Judge James P. Gray
-
All I said was that they were affiliated via a listserv. I guess I should now add a private listserv.
Fact or fiction? You tell me.
What part of that statement is made up Anon?
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-24 06:56 ]
-
Carey, nobody questioned the truth of what you say. I believe you. Why wouldn't Jeff and Deborah be on some of the same lists? They share a lot of the same interests. But that wouldn't make Deborah an edcon.
I was surprised to read from Spots that Deb put her son in another program after the first one. I'd be interested to know what kind of program that was and what she thinks of it. That might shed some light on her beliefs and practices wrt the industry.
Anon (Jeff, maybe?) nailed this one
"This attentuated reasoning is a throwback to McCarthy era standard of "If you at any time ever KNEW a communist, then you must yourself BE a communist"
This seems to be a big problem w/ this issue. You know, too many weirdos out there. At least with you people I know WHY you are weird!!!
Kady
-
Deborah,
Are you affliated with Berryman? What type of formal training do you have working with struggling teens?
I was not insinuating that Deborah was and Ed Con. I was just saying that Deborah and Jeff were affiliated. I was answering the question posed by this anon. That is all.
By the way my dictionary "websters" says affiliated - to associate,join or connect.
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-24 07:44 ]
-
Are you talking about another private list, or Trekkers?
We ought to be grateful that our government monopoly schools are such a failure. If today's 18 year olds could do arithmetic, they'd be out buying enough rope to hang everybody over 40.
--Alan Handleman on Social Security
-
Deberah is involved with PURE/TREKKERS? Is she an ED-CON or just use one to place her child? If she used one was it Bozak?
-
On 2003-12-24 07:18:00, Antigen wrote:
GINGER SAID "...Anon (Jeff, maybe?) nailed this one 'This attentuated reasoning is a throwback to McCarthy era standard of "If you at any time ever KNEW a communist, then you must yourself BE a communist' ... This seems to be a big problem w/ this issue."
No it wasnt Jeff. Jeez. I made a point of stressing that I had no financial interest in any educational biz (or the OTHER smear artists). It must have been the reference to Christmas Shopping (as opposed to Chanukah Shopping) that threw you off.
-
No, I just honestly wondered if it were Jeff.
But what do you think of my framing of the paranoia problem?
I mean, I've met some diabolical characters in this industry. Miller Newton springs to mind, despite my best efforts to keep with the happy, holliday spirit. Art Barker and Libby MacDonald too.
But they're the exception. Most of the people who get caught up in this parent movement thing are well intended. Good people often do horrible things to others when they think they're doing it for a good cause.
Everybody seems to be looking for some maniacle, hunched over evil monster at the core of this and I don't think there is one. Even those lost souls like Art and Virgil, without their cult followings, they're just pathetic losers who've invested all they were and all they had in an illusion. That's all the legacy they will ever have.
There never was a good war or a bad peace.
--Benjamin Franklin, (1773)
-
To paraphrase Woody Allen (I think), just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
I reached the conclusion very early on that a high percentage of posts were emanating from the loathsome organization(s), specifically to incite flame wars; or better yet, demonstrate to any parents who might be "on the fence" about BM programs, just see all the infighting, backbiting, and coarse language that goes on here and you can easily conclude that the program critics were "mere chattering pigs".
Too bad that so many were so eager to help them succeed by living down to the loathsome ones' expectations of us.
Perhaps in the new year, let's pray that the quality of discourse will be less directed to ad hominem attacks, and more conscious of the ultimate goal: shutting down as much of the gulag as possible -- one one program at a time, one school at a time or even one child at a time. Divisiveness and reciprocal slander is counterproductive to that goal.
Letting WWASPS, PURE, and their ilk fragment the opposition with their ludicrous threats of holding all parents "accountable" (including parents fighting against the organizations) based on some ivory-tower notion of ideological "purity" is just a short cut to surrender.
If the smear artists can scare away the people with the most direct familial and economic interests at stake (i.e., the check writing parents), they tear the guts out of the opposition. If so, all they'll have to beat will left be a few courageous individuals with highly elevated senses of self-righteousness, but not much in the way of juice.
-
I was going to ignore the anon questions, but since Carey has jumped in and is attempting to "associate" me with Jeff yet again, I'll say that the question has already been answered numerous times.
8/03/03
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?So ... 9&start=30 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?Sort=&topic=2620&forum=9&start=30)
8/07/03
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#16446 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2658&forum=9&start=10#16446)
8/8/03
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?So ... 9&start=10 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?Sort=&topic=2700&forum=9&start=10)
8/30/03 Jeff- How he came to be on my listserve
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?So ... 9&start=10 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?Sort=&topic=2880&forum=9&start=10)
9/1/03
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mo ... 9&start=50 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=944&forum=9&start=50)
Carey, I assume the lengthy explanation I gave you on 30 Aug was not enough. Like I said before, you'll just have to sit with your imaginings. If you have anything substantial to prove an association, post it up. I have championed your cause from the beginning, but your paranoia has interfered with your judgment, therefore why I have chosen to avoid interacting with you. I imagine you got a burr in your butt after this interaction:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?So ... 9&start=60 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?Sort=&topic=2778&forum=9&start=60)
and decided I was suspect and began your campaign to prove some association with PURE or Jeff. You never answered the quesiton I posed back then. IF I was associated with either party, why would SS's email (the one you posted) state that Jeff was "monitoring" my listserve? You're like a snapping turtle. Let go. I'm not "one of them".
Ginger, as to Spots comment about me "putting my son in a program". Are you sure she wasn't talking about the Ms D Va- Deb? If she was referring to me, I missed it. Do you have a link? She may have been refering to this:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mo ... 9&start=30 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=523&forum=9&start=30)
In any event, I never placed either of my sons in a program. I do not advocate programs under any circumstances. I know 7 people personally who have been sent to warehousing facilities beginning in the late 40's to present, and not one of them had a positive experience.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?So ... 9&start=10 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?Sort=&topic=2789&forum=9&start=10)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mo ... 9&start=10 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=662&forum=9&start=10)
http://fornits.com/wwf/22036 (http://fornits.com/wwf/22036)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... &forum=9&0 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3368&forum=9&0)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2745&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2745&forum=9)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=1047&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=1047&forum=9)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mo ... 9&start=10 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=2704&forum=9&start=10)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?So ... 9&start=10 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?Sort=&topic=2721&forum=9&start=10)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mo ... 9&start=10 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=2224&forum=9&start=10)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2379&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2379&forum=9)
Several people who frequently post here are members of my listserve- you all know who you are. Anyone want to step up to the plate on this one? Or would you prefer to remain silent for fear of being "associated" with the big bad wolf, who the majority of you vouched for; and certainly NOT ONE spoke against when his membership was posed? I left it to you folks, who were much further along in your research of the infamous industry and knew the personalities involved.
If it's any consolation Carey- as I imagine you'd give $12,500 to be part of my mysterious listserve- it is relatively inactive these days. The action is happening here. You are jutified in your anger and desire for justice, but you are irrational and unreasonable, you wouldn't be welcome, solely for that reason.
-
Dear Deb,
Todays anon questions were not directed at you, but at the person making the accustions. As a regular around here, I already knew the answers.
My hope is simply that we can all dispense with the counter-productive McCarthy style tactics and stay focused on the ultimate issue of exposing the loathesome ones, rather than dilly-dallying about who has the most elevated sense of righteousness.
-
Deborah,
Whether or not you like it, Jeff was a part, and could still be for all I know, a part of your "private" listserv. I can see why you would rather claim to not be associated with him, or why maybe you have now chosen to disassociate yourself from him. It really does not make any differnce to me one way or another. I was only responding to the anon posting. I knew there was/is an association at one time or another.
Really though, you should not get so worked up over the facts. Jeff was on your listserv, and that does denote an association. Whether it is past AND present, I don't know.
loathesome oneS
Scott, who are the loathesome ones? Are they all ed cons and all programs? Or, are they the ones that you determine are loathesome? I am just trying to determine who the "judge and jury" is.
-
Sorry Carey, I'm not going to give you an answer as to who exactly is "loathesome".
However, even though I can't "give" you an answer, may I suggest that you get out your list of all the loathesome people from whom you have accepted money, and perhaps you could find some who might want to "rent" my answer?
Who is loathesome? The answer, I suspect, is already in your hand.
[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2003-12-24 14:29 ]
-
On 2003-12-24 11:42:00, scottT wrote:
"To paraphrase Woody Allen (I think), just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
Indeed.
I reached the conclusion very early on that a high percentage of posts were emanating from the loathsome organization(s), specifically to incite flame wars; or better yet, demonstrate to any parents who might be "on the fence" about BM programs, just see all the infighting, backbiting, and coarse language that goes on here and you can easily conclude that the program critics were "mere chattering pigs".
I assume everyone at least considered the possability, didn't ya'll?
If not, C'mon! Think back to the day when, aside from knock-knock jokes, making fun of druggies was about the only kind of humor not verbotten to phasers. I thank God I was an out of towner. At least I never had to face playing the role w/ people I knew back in the real world.
But really, I would hope that most people looking at this from the outside would also realize that this is pretty much what your family reunion might look like 20 years from now if you get sucked into the TOUGHLOVE hategroup. I wouldn't wish us on anyone, would you?
Perhaps in the new year, let's pray that the quality of discourse will be less directed to ad hominem attacks, and more conscious of the ultimate goal: shutting down as much of the gulag as possible -- one one program at a time, one school at a time or even one child at a time. Divisiveness and reciprocal slander is counterproductive to that goal.
I'm not really looking at this as one program at a time. That's actually been going on sort of out of the media spotlight pretty constantly all the way back to the `70's. I'm looking at it more as a public education project. See, the problem has never been that nobody in authority could find out about these programs. The problem has always been that they don't care. They don't think it effects them. But it does.
Letting WWASPS, PURE, and their ilk fragment the opposition with their ludicrous threats of holding all parents "accountable" (including parents fighting against the organizations) based on some ivory-tower notion of ideological "purity" is just a short cut to surrender.
If the smear artists can scare away the people with the most direct familial and economic interests at stake (i.e., the check writing parents), they tear the guts out of the opposition. If so, all they'll have left to beat will be a few courageous individuals with highly elevated senses of self-righteousness, but not much in the way of juice.
You might be surprised at the staying power of some of the folks who are interested in this issue. Most of them don't post here, but enough of them do read so that everyone's pretty much up to speed on who's who and what's what. What is most disturbing to me about ODD and other 'disorders' is that there is no real attempt to ascertain the environmental picture ? the social, political, and economic factors that drive a person's behavior. We're asking the wrong questions ? we shouldn't be asking, 'does this kid have a disease called ODD?' but 'why is this kid so at odds with his or her society?'
--Leah Harris, a progressive psychiatrist
-
On 2003-12-24 12:31:00, Deborah wrote:
Ginger, as to Spots comment about me "putting my son in a program". Are you sure she wasn't talking about the Ms D Va- Deb? If she was referring to me, I missed it. Do you have a link? She may have been refering to this:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mo ... 9&start=30 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=523&forum=9&start=30)
No, Deb, I'm not at all sure she wasn't. That would explain a LOT!
In any event, I never placed either of my sons in a program. I do not advocate programs under any circumstances. I know 7 people personally who have been sent to warehousing facilities beginning in the late 40's to present, and not one of them had a positive experience.
That's pretty much what I thought. Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown, _Peanuts_ [Charles Schulz]
-
Scott,
Got it, pictures clear, I see where you are coming from.
Sorry, didn't mean to challenge you with that question.
Let me ask you this. If I stand up and speak out against PURE and Sue Scheff for what she and her associates did to me and my family, why does that bother or concern you? If you have a problem with WWASP, why don't you go after them? Is what ever you have agianst WWASP dependent on Sue being found innocent? I don't get it.
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-24 15:04 ]
-
Scott and Carey, I think you're both going to drive yourselves crazy trying to figure out who are the victims and who are the perpetrators in all this.
I'm not afraid to say it right out in the open, I believe these programs are cults. While there are always certain core members who are more guilty than others, there is no clear line and nobody but nobody can be counted on to stay firmly in one camp or another. That's how cults are.
Of the two men probably most responsible for bringing scrutiny to Straight and Straight legacy programs over the years, one was a Sr. Staffer and the other was an entheusiastic fundraiser from the parnets' group. The founders, otoh, still apparently don't understand that the Program is abusive or they wouldn't have put their grandson through it just a coupld of years ago. You think starting flame wars on a public forum is the end all of dirty tricks? These bastards killed Peter McWilliams for having the audacity to prove marijuana can save lives and to help change California law accordingly.
I'm not just speaking generally here. Betty Sembler and Calvina Fay saw to it that Peter McWilliams would be convicted under the drug kingpin laws. He choked to death in his home, unable to keep down his medications or food and too weak to clear his airway, just about a week before his sentencing hearing.
(see http://mcwilliams.com/ (http://mcwilliams.com/) and keep an eye out for word from Todd McCormick. He just got out of prison on the 10th and promises to write extensively about his experience)
Yes, we know they play dirty. But they also believe, right down to the core, that they're the good guys.
They who? Well, take your pick on any given day.
Carey, I honestly think Deborah's your friend. And I think you're seeing injuns behind some trees where there aren't any. I don't blame you. Seems like you had the priviledge of living in a world untouched by the TOUGHLOVE hategroup till fairly recently. I envy you that. Maybe you're just suffering from culture shock.
But your kids are free now. (Yeay!) You can stop and catch your breath.
[1971 - 2001] the darkest chapter in Federal law enforcement history.
Committee on Government Reform
-
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance." -- Unknown
Ya'll, this is a highly emotional issue we've all chosen to delve into. It's like America's horrible family secret that strikes right to the root of who we are. The stakes are very high for everyone who has the courage to look this square in the face.
So lets all cut eachother a break and be nice to eachother for the holidays. Just assume that all questions are litteral. Who can keep straight all past conversation by various faceless anons and screennames?
Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
Mahatma Gandhi, My Autobigraphy, p. 446
-
Ginger please erase the above post. I hit send before I finished.
Ginger I respect you for who you are and for what you stand for. I always will. Why? Because you DO NOT try to tell other people what to think and beleive, but instead challenge people to step back evaluate and then address or readdress the issue at hand.
I know you don't agree with me on everything, and that is ok. I would not expect for you to, nor would I expect for anyone to. You, like me, don't have that overwhelming need to control others. We just have our experiences to share. We can tell others what has happened to us.
You are so right when you said that I have "lived in world untouched by toughlove" until only recently. But understand Ginger, my experience has been totally different than yours. Not only were my boys in a "program" that I knew very little about, but additionally they were exploited by a separate group of individuals (all who are in the program business) who, played on my worse fears in order to further their own agenda, for monitary gain and/or revenge.
What I don't understand, and what they won't answer for me is: Why does my exposing, Sue, Bozak, Amber Lee, etc. hurt their case against WWASP? Why is my telling what happen to me such a threat to the others?
-
Dear Carey,
One thing on which I'm sure we can both agree:
The only sight more beautiful than Ensenada in my rear view mirror is Orotina in your rear view mirror.
Merry Christmas to you and your boys! Lets all hope for a better and more peaceful year in 2004.
[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2003-12-24 17:15 ]
-
Carey, thanks.
On 2003-12-24 15:53:00, Carey wrote:
You are so right when you said that I have "lived in world untouched by toughlove" until only recently. But understand Ginger, my experience has been totally different than yours. Not only were my boys in a "program" that I knew very little about, but additionally they were exploited by a separate group of individuals (all who are in the program business) who, played on my worse fears in order to further their own agenda, for monitary gain and/or revenge.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. It's actually sort of refreshing to run into someone in this neighborhood who's not so jaded about it. But I am. Have been for a very long time. My family has been in this since I was 6 years old. I've seen this sort of thing before. I am not surprised.
What I don't understand, and what they won't answer for me is: Why does my exposing, Sue, Bozak, Amber Lee, etc. hurt their case against WWASP? Why is my telling what happen to me such a threat to the others?
Well, the complaint seems to be that there may be people added to the WWASP suit because of the content of that list. No one has provided any documentation one way or the other. But that's the story.
Some of these assholes raked you over the coals. Tell me about it!
But not everyone they knew were in on it.
Clancy's Law: The perceived role of governments is to deploy ever increasing resources to the attainment of ever diminishing end results.
--Home Page (http://ozinfo.com/)